Poor in-game management nearly cost Washington a win against the Bears

Just three weeks ago, I was lauding Dan Quinn’s game management on this site. Several weeks of bold - and analytically justified - in-game decisions were a significant part of Washington’s eventual four-game win streak.

But the season’s not over, not by a longshot, and Quinn’s still under the microscope, and will be for the foreseeable future.

The game against the Bears was frustrating for a variety of reasons, most notably because of Washington’s inability to score touchdowns in the red zone and put Chicago away before the end of the first half. Washington was clearly the better team yesterday, with the defense playing out of its mind for most of the game, and the offense ultimately putting up over 480 yards.

But this game felt very much like if Washington allowed the Bears to stick around, they’d eventually find their groove and end up making it much closer than it actually was. And, that’s exactly what happened.

Putting up a touchdown, on a long run by D’Andre Swift in the third, Chicago immediately changed what had been a fairly lopsided affair into a one score game. It remained 12-7 until quite late in the 4th quarter, after Chicago fumbled a handoff at the goal line, with Washington recovering.

Kliff Kingsbury would call three relatively conservative plays, and the team would end up with a 4th and inches at their own 12-yard line.

At this point, there were essentially three possible outcomes:

1. Washington would convert the first down, and, assuming a reasonably efficient offensive approach, run out the clock on the game, winning 12-7.
2. Washington would fail to convert, the Bears would get the ball back and EITHER score a TD or fail to convert and lose the game. If they scored though, Washington would likely have something around 2:30 to try to score before the end of the game.
3. Washington would punt the ball to the Bears and the Bears would either burn virtually all the time off the clock and score to win, or would fail to score and lose.

One of these options is clearly worse than the other two, in that its possible outcome largely precluded a response by Washington, and the analytics showed that:

Though going for it on your own 12 yard line seems “wacky” in a conventional, conservative framework regarding these sorts of decisions - as seen below in the dialogue between Tony Romo and Jim Nantz - through the analytical lens, it was a slam dunk. And Romo’s impulse, “I’d go for it,” seems to speak to his deeper intuitive acumen on the issue.

It’s impossible to tell from the clip above, but there was some suggestion at the time that Kliff Kingsbury seemed interested in going for it. In any case, that would make an interesting question for Quinn and/or Kingsbury during their press conferences this week.

Nevertheless, Washington would go on to punt, Chicago would take the ball down the field, punch it in, and add a...